Supplemental first-grade interventions for ELLs improved phonological and word-level skills but not comprehension, with comprehension gains emerging at one-year follow-up¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2012 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Vaughn et al. (2006) reported significant differences favoring treatment groups in phonological and word-level skills but not in reading comprehension for first-grade ELLs. → Denton Carolyn A 2012 q2 i? In a one-year follow-up with no further researcher-provided intervention, the intervention effects had become stronger and included significant differences in reading comprehension and oral language. → Denton Carolyn A 2012 (2)

Evidence¶

Denton Carolyn A 2012¶

Denton Carolyn A. (2012). Response to Intervention for Reading Difficulties in the Primary Grades: Some Answers and Lingering Questions. Journal of Learning Disabilities. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412442155

q2 · i? · review · r2

The review reports that Vaughn et al. (2006) provided first-grade ELLs a small-group supplemental oral language and literacy intervention in English or Spanish, with "significant differences favoring the treatment groups in phonological and word-level skills but not in reading comprehension."

"They reported significant differences favoring the treatment groups in phonological and word-level skills but not in reading comprehension."

Denton Carolyn A 2012 (2)¶

Denton Carolyn A. (2012). Response to Intervention for Reading Difficulties in the Primary Grades: Some Answers and Lingering Questions. Journal of Learning Disabilities. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412442155

q2 · i? · review · r2

The review reports the Cirino et al. (2009) one-year follow-up of the same students, in which "the effects of the first grade intervention had become stronger and included significant differences in reading comprehension and oral language." No effect sizes are printed.

"However, in a one-year follow-up of the same students with no further researcher-provided intervention, the effects of the first grade intervention had become stronger and included significant differences in reading comprehension and oral language (Cirino et al., 2009)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Communication Skills — outcome: instruction changes it
• Phonological Awareness — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• In the Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2006) trial, no reading measure reached statistical significance, but five of seven effect sizes were substantively important — related
• Supplemental Reading Mastery instruction showed substantively important immediate effects on four of five reading measures for English language learners, none statistically significant — related
• One year after the intervention, Reading Mastery showed a statistically significant effect on word attack for English language learners, with positive but non-significant differences on other reading measures — related
• One-year follow-up and LiPS-vs-RWT supplemental comparisons showed mostly non-significant differences, with some follow-up alphabetics effects remaining significant — related
• In the Vaughn, Mathes, et al. (2006) trial, Enhanced Proactive Reading students significantly outperformed comparison students on Word Attack and Passage Comprehension — reports the opposite
• Interventions targeting SRL or EF show little evidence of far transfer to the other construct — related
• CALI shows some evidence of improving oral and reading comprehension skills (d = .125) without opportunity cost to reading gains. — related